Laptop Fuel Cells Coming Soon 181
tomsastroblog writes "Soon laptop batteries could last all day and be recharged from a cartridge. BBC News has a piece on fuel cells as laptop batteries, and what their adoption could mean for laptop usage." From the article: "At the Cebit technology fair in Hanover, Taiwanese hi-tech firm Antig said its fuel cells should be on the shelves of computer shops by early 2007. The first versions of the methanol-using units should keep a laptop going for up to nine hours. Fuel cell technology got a boost recently when international air flight regulators changed rules that banned passengers from carrying flammable methanol onto aircraft."
Re:Price and Stocks (Score:3, Informative)
Europe (Valid through March 31, 2006)
European Posted Contract Price Euro 268/MT
North America (Valid through March 31, 2006)
Methanex Non-Discounted Reference Price USD 1.07/Gal* USD 356/MT
Asia Pacific (Valid through March 31, 2006)
Asian Posted Contract Price USD 330/MT
* Converted to USD/MT using a conversion rate of 332.6 Gal per MT
Re:dupe?!?!?!?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"flammable" (Score:3, Informative)
SmartFuelCell (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Price and Stocks (Score:1, Informative)
A good index for tracking this industry (and green/alternative energy in general) is the WilderHill Clear Power Index, which is tracked by Exchange Traded Fund PBW.
That said, here are some interesting stocks in the industry (off top of head):
MDTL, Medis Technologies
HYGS, Hydrogenics
ENER, Energy Conversion Devices
BLDP, Ballard Power
FCEL, Fuel Cell Power
QTWW, Quantum Fuel
PLUG, Plug Power
DESC, Distributed Energy
MCEL, Millenium Fuel Cell
ASRNF.OB, Astris Energy
And a few non-fuel cell focused alt/energy companies:
ACPW, Active Power
CPST, Capstone Turbine
HOKU, Hoke Scientific
XSNX.OB, XSUNX Inc.
CESV, China Energy Saving Technology
GSHF.OB, Greenshift
Honestly, how long can we really go before becoming seriously focused on minimizing the impact of our energy consumption? This seismic shift is coming soon. Some day, a -responsible- US president will not only give lip service, but will actually sets us on the path of an 'Apollo project' in the environmento/energy sector.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You realize... (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of people keep saying this, but it just doesn't hold true!
First of all, methanol doesn't pose nearly the health risk most people believe. As someone with a solid non-practitioner background in both chemistry and pharmacology, I would play with methanol over toner or ink any day... Additionally, the breakdown products the the electrolyte in Li-ion batteries makes methanol exposure look like a cool drink of mountain water by comparison (for an idea, the most common counts as a chemical WMD in a different context).
Second, methanol doesn't pose nearly the fire/explosion risk most people believe. The Li-ion batteries we use now pose a FAR greater risk of explosion, and as for fire, if you take the same precautions you would when refueling your car (with yet another far more flamable/explosive liquid), you have nothing to worry about.
Third, refilling... Aside from the previously-mentioned toxicity of ink and toner, methanol evaporates cleanly. So if you spill a few drops, you can just let them evaporate rather than permanantly staining yourself, your table, your laptop, your carpet, your dog, and seemingly anything else even in sight of the ink refill kit.
The biggest complaint about the idea of using fuel cells over a rechargeable battery in laptops comes from the UPS-factor. Even an all-but-dead laptop battery will let it stay up (assuming you have it on AC) through a short power outage, or to move to another outlet, or to quickly reinsert the plug your cat pulled out, etc. Running on a fuel cell, all those advantages disappear unless you use the fuel cell as your primary power source, which could get expensive over time (despite methanol's low cost, AC power costs a hell of a lot less).
Cost + fuel medium (Score:4, Informative)
So, the size of the reaction interface determines the power that you can get out of the fuel cell, and the size of the energy reservoir determines how long it will last.
A laptop draws, what, 100 watts peak? A car with an 80 hp engine is at 60 kW - 600 times more. A fuel cell big enough to power that would be prohibitive in cost. Not to mention, the fuel cell will degrade with time - impurities in the fuel, and (if it's a polymer cell), degradation in the polymer itself.
Next point is the fuel medium. The energy density of methanol is less than gasoline, at about 22MJ/kg vs 45MJ/kg for gasoline. So, assuming comparable fuel efficency with the internal combustion + mechanical drive vs fuel cell + motors, you'd need twice as much fuel.
There are no good fuel cells that operate on gasoline - the more complex the hydrocarbon, the harder it is to build a fuel cell. Couple that with the way the sulpher tends to kill fuel cells, and it's not feasable (low sulpher gasoline is available - have you ever seen guarenteed no sulpher gasoline?)
So, it would cost more, and you'd only get half the distance on a single tank of methanol. Assuming that you can get the methanol. The whole fuel distribution problem is a seperate case.
All the numbers here are conservative - I'm sure my powerbook draws significantly less than 100W, 80 hp is at the low end for a car - I believe 100hp is more typical. The laptop fuel cells don't use pure methanol, it's methanol and water, further reducing the energy density.
Re:You realize... (Score:3, Informative)
Like you said, toner isn't exactly the most friendly substance either, when I was younger a couple of friends and I got a couple bottles of the stuff and had lots of fun making it explode and using it for mischief. Karma perhaps...
Re:You realize... (Score:3, Informative)
The "culprit" involves nothing more and nothing less than an autocatalyzing eletrolyte decomposition product. "Name brand" has nothing at all to do with that.
Now, some higher-quality batteries may use what amounts to a catalyst posion (the choice of anode material, for example, plays a HUGE role in decomposition rate). But don't assume the original manufacturer uses anything even remotely resembling high quality parts - On the contrary, they choose the cheapest reasonably-safe batteries available at the time of product release, to give the greatest profit for the lowest price-point. Post-release 3rd party batteries just don't come under the original warrantee, so we hear more about them sucking than the OEM ones. But if you don't buy something like "Emergizer" or "Durasell" brand knockoff crap as replacements, you'll most likely get a higher quality battery than the original.